Notice: I have written in other languages, many interesting articles that you
can read translated in English
in these links:
Part 1 and Part 2.


WAS DJWAL KHOOL A HIGH INITIATE?



 
 
Alice Bailey claimed that Djwal Khool was a high-ranking initiate, and that is why Bailey's followers are upset when we tell them that this asseveration was not true. And to illustrate them, I put below the article published by a defender of Alice Bailey named Patrick Chouinard (and in purple I added my own comments):
 
 
« Some theosophists assert that DK was not a high initiate at all. This is based on a statement by H.P.B:
 
‘Helena Blavatsky, who first shared the notion of Masters with the West, referred to D.K. as “that little boy” and there are some assertions that Blavatsky did not believe that D.K. was as evolved as the other Masters around her, rather he was thought to be only a "messager of the Masters."
 
For this reason when some traditional Theosophists hear about Bailey’s Tibetan, they shake their heads as they believe Blavatsky did not consider Djwal Khool (D.K.) to be a Master, or Mahatma…
 
(Not only for this reason but also because there are others evidences to show that Djwal Khool was not a high initiate at that time.)
 
Edward Abdill, in his book Masters of the Wisdom, refers to the D.K. and uses the spelling Djual Khool. Abdill also asserts that in the Mahatma Letters, the “Master K.H.” asserts that “D.K.” was only a high chela [disciple], not yet a Master at the time. I myself have found the quote in The Mahatma Letters that Abdill refers to. And, it is true that Blavatsky’s Masters did not see D.K. as a Master at all.
 
This has caused some disagreement, tension and difficulty between more traditional Theosophists and those that follow Bailey’s teachings. I find that unfortunate because again it puts the emphasis on the messenger and not the message, meaning people may discount Bailey’s books as having value, when in my humble opinion they do. (Lisa Love, https://soultospirit.com/2020/01/08/who-is-baileys-tibetan/)
 
(I have published more than a hundred articles on my blog proving that Alice Bailey was a charlatan and that her teaching is full of numerous errors and falsehoods, see link.)
 
However, it is clear from scrutinizing statements made about DK in The Mahatma Letters that he was far from being merely a messenger boy or a chela of the “first rung” at that time but was of high status indeed (at the very least an “adept” or 4th degree initiate to be precise).
 
(That's false as I'm going to prove below.)
 
First he was clearly KH’s chief disciple (DK is referred to in a note by HPB in the September 1882 edition of The Theosophist magazine as "our Brother’s [KH's] favorite Chela") and is often referred to as a "high chela."
 
(A high chela is not a great initiate but a more advanced disciple.)
 
These alone imply a very high spiritual status. KH indicates that he had undergone an initiation changing his relationship to KH and presumably his duties:
 
‘And it was he again G.K. "great artist" who had to make away with the "leech," and to correct cap and features, and who made it "look like Master" (he will insist giving me that name though he is no longer my chela in reality), since M. after spoiling it would not go to the trouble of correcting it but preferred going to sleep instead.’ (Mahatma Letter 24b, http://www.theosophy.wiki/en/ML85b [written September 1882]).
 
He had graduated so to speak from his role as KH’s primary chela and helper.
 
(In this letter Kuthumi talks about a portrait that Djwal Khool drew, which has nothing to do with the activities of a great initiation: "Djwal Khool tells me, my making fun of the portrait notwithstanding, the likeness is good but would have been better had Morya Sahib not interfered with it, and he, D.K. allowed to have his own ‘artistic’ ways." ML 24B, p.184)
 
The Mahatma KH refers to DK as "high, initiated" chela (see: Theosophy Wiki: Djual Khool):
 
"She can and did produce phenomena due to her natural powers combined with several long years of regular training, and her phenomena are sometimes better, more wonderful, and far more perfect than those of some high and initiated chelas, whom she surpasses in artistic taste and purely western appreciation of art, as for example in the instantaneous production of images: witness, her portrait of the 'faikir' Tiravalla mentioned in Suggestions, and compared with my portrait of Gjual Khool." (KH, The Mahatma Letters, Letter LIV)
 
For whatever reason H.P.B. refers to DK as being a novice and by implication not as advanced as she was (in one of her letters to A.P.Sinnett), K.H. states plainly here that his powers were superior to hers. And also that he is a Tibetan.
 
(In this letter Kuthumi is saying the opposite that affirm Patrick Chouinard: Blavatsky´s powers were superior to those of some high and initiated disciples. And it is false that Djwal Khool was Tibetan, because he was Indian, see link.)
 
One of his functions as that helper was to help with the teaching of very advanced esoteric cosmology.
 
Several Mahatmas wrote a number of articles for the Theosophist magazine or arranged for articles to be written by their chelas. There are articles by DK in The Theosophist magazine explaining the intricacies of planetary chains, rounds, etc. (published under a pseudonym):
 
(This is a lie.)
 
‘DK also reviewed  - rather negatively -  a book called The Philosophy of Spirit in The Theosophist, vol 3, December 1881, as well as a " footnote" to the same ( currently published as Mahatma Letter No. 83 in the chronological edition of the letters…)’ (Theosophical Wiki: "Djual Khool")
 
No novice would have such understanding or be tasked with clarifying these subtle points of esoteric cosmology:
 
(But it is not necessary to be a great initiate either, for example I have clarified many aspects of theosophical cosmology and I am not an initiate. And it must be emphasized that the cosmology taught by Alice Bailey is full of errors and falsehoods.)
 
‘In a letter to A. P.Sinnett, one of the Brothers again mentions a third initiation in regards to certain knowledge:
 
“When our first correspondence began, there was no idea then of any publications being issued on the basis of the replies you might receive. You went on putting questions at random, and the answers being given at different times to disjointed queries, and so to say, under a semi-protest, were necessarily imperfect, often from different standpoints. When the publication of some of these were permitted for the Occult World, it was hoped that among your readers some may be able, like yourself, to put all the different pieces together and evolve out of them the skeleton, or a shadow of our system, which, although not exactly the original—this would be an impossibility—would be as near an approach to it as could be made by a non-initiate. But the results have proved quasi-disastrous! We had tried an experiment and sadly failed! Now we see that none but those who have passed at least their third initiation are able to write upon those subjects comprehensively.” (The Mahatma Letters, ML 128)
 
(Do not take literally what Master Kuthumi said because I have not gone through the third initiation and I have explained in a comprehensive way on those topics.)
 
In the same letter, the Brother goes on to say that The Secret Doctrine will correct some of the earlier mistakes, perhaps hinting that the author or authors of that work had passed the requisite initiation to enable them to write upon such subjects.’ (https://universaltheosophy.com/key-concepts/initiation/)
 
(Alice Bailey claimed that Djwal Khool was the author of The Secret Doctrine, but this asseveration is false, see link.)
 
It was DK who drew the “Man on a Planet diagram” (reproduced in the Mahatma Letters: “N.B. -- The above in D. K.'s hand -- the rest in K.H.'s. -- A. P.Sinnett"; see: https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-14.htm)
 
Mention of this diagram is made by H.P.B in one of her letters to A.P.Sinnett:
 
‘D. K. is very angry with me for having written so inaccurately to you about him yesterday, “dishonouring” him in your eyes. He says he never copied Olcott’s and Coul. diagram; but it was they who copied his — (did I tell you otherwise?).’ (Letter No. LXXXVII)
 
(I show you the diagram drawn by Djwal Khool and there is nothing extraordinary about it, and in fact it is slanted incorrectly.)
 

 
Finally we are told that DK was capable of creating a mayavirupa. He delivered letters from KH and M. to both A.O. Hume and T. Subba Row in his majavirupa:
 
‘Several times D.Kh. [Djual Kul] had tried to penetrate [in his mayavi rupa] into Rothney Castle [Hume’s home], but suffered each time so acutely that I told him to give it up. . . . Well, Fern did not post it but sent a friend – his dugpa – to leave it at the house and the latter placed it in the conservatory about 2 a.m. This was half of a phenomenon but H. took it for an entire thing, and got very mad when M. refused as he thought to take up his answer in the same way [i.e. by occult means].
 
Then I wrote to console him, and told him as plainly as I could say, without breaking M.'s confidence in relation to Fern that D.K. could do nothing for him, at present, and that it was one of Morya’s chelas that had placed the letter there, etc., etc. I believe the hint was quite broad enough and no deception practiced? The second letter, I think, was thrown on his table by Dj. Khool . . . and, as it was done by himself it was a pukka orthodox phenomenon and Hume has no need to complain.’ (Mahatma Letters, no. 170 / ML 45, August 23, 1882)
 
And in one of Blavatsky's letters to Sinnett she writes:
 
'D. K. passed last night into Babajee’s room [in Londonl] and—I heard him [Babajee] sobbing the whole night. I went to him and knocked but he would not open. New mystery!!' (The Letters of H.P.Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett, p.204)
 
Only an ADEPT can do that according to HPB (as far as I know she could not do that herself):
 
'The Mâyâvi-Rûpa is a Manasic Body, and should not be confused with the Linga-sarîra; its projection is always a Mânasic act, since it cannot be formed without the activity of Kriyâshakti.
 
The linga sharira must not be confused with the mayavi rupa or “thought body”--the image created by the thought and will of an adept or sorcerer; for while the “astral form” or linga sharira is a real entity, the “thought body” is a temporary illusion created by the mind.' (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Theosophical Glossary, p.256)
 
'The adept may at his will use his Mayavi-rupa, but the ordinary man does not, except in very rare cases. It is called Mayavi-rupa because it is a form of illusion created for use in the particular instance, and it has quite enough of the adept’s mind in it to accomplish its purpose. The ordinary man merely creates a thought-image, whose properties and powers are at the time wholly unknown to him.'  (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Collected Writings vol. X, p.p.274)
 
‘When an Adept projects his Mâyâvi-Rûpa, the guiding intelligence that informs it comes from the Heart, the essence of Manas entering it; the attributes and qualities are drawn from the Auric Envelope. Nothing can hurt the Mâyâvi-Rûpa –no sharp instrument or weapon– since, as regards this plane, it is purely subjective. It has no material connection with the physical Body, no umbilical cord.
 
It is spiritual and ethereal, and passes everywhere without let or hindrance. It thus entirely differs from the Linga-Śarîra [etheric body], which, if injured, acts by repercussion on the physical Body. The Mâyâvi-Rûpa is a Manasic Body, and should not be confused with the Linga-Śarîra; its projection is always a Mânasic act, since it cannot be formed without the activity of Kriyâúakti.
 
The Mâyâvi-Rûpa may be so strongly vitalized that it can go on to another plane, and can there unite with the beings of that plane, and so ensoul them. But this can only be done by an Adept. (H.P.Blavatsky, Collected Writings vol XII, p.707)
 
'[When] a man consciously projects a Mâyâvi-Rûpa and uses it as a vehicle of Consciousness, he is an Adept.' (Ibid, p.706)
 
(Djwal Khool most likely used his astral double, not his mayavi-rupa, and a chela can easily use his astral.)
 
 
The word 'adept' is used in a very specific sense by Blavatsky:
 
‘There are four grades of initiation mentioned in exoteric works, which are known respectively in Sanskrit as “Shrôtâpanna,” “Sagardagan,” “Anagamin,” and “Arhan”—the four paths to Nirvana, in this, our fourth Round, hearing the same appellations. The Arhan, though he can see the Past, the Present, and the Future, is not yet the highest Initiate; for the Adept himself, the initiated candidate, becomes chela (pupil) to a higher Initiate. Three further higher grades have to be conquered by the Arhan who would reach the apex; of the ladder of Arhatship.’ (The Secret Doctrine I:206-07; see also "adept" in: https://universaltheosophy.com/key-concepts/initiation/)
 
This quote also shows that the word "chela" does not necessarily refer to a spiritual novice. And it makes clear that “Arhan” (or “Arhat”) and “Adept” are synonymous and refer to a 4th degree initiate. In Initiation, Human and Solar (DK’s first book through Bailey and written many years prior to the disclosure of his identity) it says that DK was even more advanced than an “adept” at that time:
 
‘He is the latest of the adepts taking initiation, having taken the 5th in 1875…’ (p.57)
 
In 1883 Mahatma K.H. mentions that D.K. was in preparation for initiation:
 
“I am extremely busy with preparations of initiation. Several of my chelas — Gjual-Khool among others — are striving to reach “the other shore.” (Mahatma Letter no. 25, February 2, 1883)
 
The following explains the apparent discrepancy:
 
“A man may take initiation on each of the seven planes [thus allowing him/her to progressively function consciously on all of them] ...It is obvious therefore that it is correct to speak of seven initiations, yet it would be nevertheless equally correct to enumerate five, ten or twelve initiations. The matter is complicated for occult students…” (Initiation, Human and Solar, p.179-180)
 
The seven initiations outlined in Initiation, Human and Solar are each governed by one of the Seven Rays and each relate to one of the Seven Planes (The Rays and Initiations, p.340). (Blavatsky also related spiritual development to the successive unfoldment of our seven principles.) However, two more are possible (though “few” achieve them: Initiation, Human and Solar p.161). They are “extra-planetary” (in terms of the expansion of consciousness). In A Treatise on Cosmic Fire he states:
 
‘Within these nine distinct expansions …are to be found lesser expansions and it is here that the main difficulty for the student of divine psychology lies.’ (p.1208)
 
It is to one of these “lesser expansions” that K.H. is doubtless referring to when he says he was assisting D.K. in preparation for “initiation” in 1883 (since D.K had already taken the 5th initiation in 1875). As for H.P.B referring to D.K as “that little boy,” his age at the time she had physical contact with him during her stay at the Mahatma’s ashram - sometime between 1868 to 1870 - has no bearing on his initiate status. High initiates can be in young bodies as every theosophists ought to know. H.P.B was almost 40 yrs. old at the time so I’m guessing that D.K. was about half her age (or at least appeared about 20 yrs. old - or younger). As we know adepts do not age as rapidly as the rest of us.
 
(Patrick Chouinard manipulates the information as I am going to show you below.)
 
»
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OBSERVATIONS
 
Alice Bailey claimed that Djwal Khool was the last of the Adepts to receive initiation, having taken the fifth initiation in 1875. But historical data proves that to be untrue as the Mahatma Letters were written essentially from the late 1880s to the late 1883s.
 
And in those letters it is shown that during this period Djwal Khool was only a disciple of Master Kuhumi and that Djwal Khool performed the activity of being the assistant of the Masters and the intermediary between them and Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Sinnett:
 
-      “Yes, I am totally willing to examine your 50 or 60 pages. . .Djwal Khool will transmit them.” (ML11, p66)
-      “In haste Djwal Khool made a bowed figure. . .but it will serve as a rough memorandum.” (ML14, p86)
-      “Djwal Khool is taking care of him [Colonel Chesney]” (ML50, p287)
-      “Attached with footer sent by Djwal Khool to be appended to W. Oxley's article.” (ML52, p293)
-      “If he [Hume] publishes what I read, I will have Blavatsky or Djwal Khool deny everything.” (ML54, p304)
-      "If you want [Sinnett] to spare Djwal Khool the trouble, you should send copies of some [of the letters I wrote to you] to the Adyar Literary Committee." (ML63, p357)
-      “Blavatsky has just had an argument with Djwal Khool.” (ML105, p442)
-      “Only today I found out through Djwal Khool.” (ML110, p446)
 
 
And so do Blavatsky's letters:
 
-      “The Disinherited wants to write to you he says, if you permit him, through Damodar.” (Letters from Blavatsky to Sinnett, L.7)
-      He will write through the Disinherited. (Letters from Blavatsky to Sinnett, L.156)
-      “Last night as we were desperately tossed and tossed from side to side by the ship we were sailing on, Djwal Khool appeared to me [in his astral double] and asked me on behalf of his Master if I would send you a note. (ML137, p467)
 
 
In 1881 Djwal Khool's powers were still small, since in September of this year Master Kuthumi told Mr. Sinnett that he was going to be away for a while, and about Djwal Khool he wrote:
 
« I leave orders with my "Disinherited" to watch over all as much as it lies in his weak powers»
(ML 104, p.441)
 
When a high initiate already has his powers highly developed.
 
 
And in this period Djwal Khool was about to die:
 
« The poor Disinherited is very sick. He fell down a cud and nearly broke both his legs. Had it not been for another chela with him who had time and the presence of mind of doing what was needed to arrest him in the fall he would have broken himself to pieces down an abyss of 2,800 feet — a pic! M. says it is a fiendish "Red Cap" [a black magician] who did it; who caught the boy off his guard for an instant and positively took advantage of it in a wink; that he roamed for weeks around the house where there is no adept now but only three chelas and a woman. Of course the D. will soon be better but it is one more proof that even a chela and of the 1st degree can be off his guard sometimes»
(Letter from HP Blavatsky to AP Sinnett, No. 8)
 
If Djwal Khool had been a high initiate he would not have fallen into that trap.
 
 
Probably Djwal Khool received his first big initiation in 1883 as noted by Master Kuthumi on two occasions:
 
In a letter to Mr. Sinnett in August 1882, the teacher wrote:
 
« Several times D. Kh. had tried to penetrate into Rothney Castle, but suffered each time so acutely, that I told him to give it up. (He is preparing for initiation and might easily fail as a consequence)»
(ML 53, p.298)
 
And in another letter that Kuthumi sent to Mr. Sinnett in February 1883, he added:
 
« I am extremely busy with preparations of initiation. Several of my chelas — Djwal-Khool among others — are striving to reach "the other shore." »
(ML 25, p.202)
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
Alice Bailey claimed that Djwal Khool had already taken the fifth initiation of the Adepts in 1875, but the Mahatma Letters show that Djwal Khool was just a disciple who took his first initiation in 1883. And this is further proof of how ignorant and deceitful was Alice Bailey; and it is deplorable that her defenders manipulate the information to try to deceive people.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment